Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1887-09-09
some of the Main Point. Trough. Gu,

The hearing before the Interstate COM
MERGE commission at Rutland last week
was one of great interest, and if one may
Judge from the general temper of the pro
ceedings, 30 far as the spirit and bearing
of the commission were concerned, the out
come of it is likely to be some very tangi-
bic results for the benefit Of the people of
Vermont. Our summarized report of the
proceedings will be found to give a correct
general idea of the facts which were de
veoped. 1t should be noted, for full un-
derstanding of the case, that the defence
of the Central Vermont company against
the charge Of violating section four of the
interstate commerce law by charging more
for short haul than for IA long haul, was
based upon two claims, first, that it was
the National Despatch line which contracts
for the carriage of Western freights and
makes the rates, while it is the Central Yer
mont company, simply, and its connecting
roads through New Hampshire and MaSsa-
chusetts, which carry local freights from
Boston to points in Vermont and fix the
rates on them. In the second place the
Central Vermont company says in effect,
''if this claim be not allowed then we claim
that our circumstances and conditions are
such as to entite us to relief or exemption
from the operation of the law ON this
point"
With regard to the first of these claims
it will be seen that, according to the plain
admission which Gov. Smith and other wit
nasaas y,ara con,nallad r., u,aLa tha Nation
al Despatch line is nothing more than "a
name" 1t has no existence as a corpora
ton, a company, or an association. 1t is
simply an arrangement between several
roads, of which the Central Vermont is the
head, for carrying through freghts to the
West, and in its practical effect it amounts
to Il scheme or arrangement for getting
around the provisions of the Interstate law.
Whether the commission will admit the
tensbility of the second clam-that of dis
similar or peculiar circumstances and con
ditions relieving the company from respon-
sibility under the fourth section of the law
cannot be said, but the inference that it
will not admit this is plain under rulings
which have already been made In
case already heard, decided and reported
the commission has held that a railroad
company can only be released from compli-
ance with the provisions of section four
(d) When the competition is with CARR
ers by water which are not subject to the
provisions of the statute
10Y When the competition is with foreign
or other railroads which are not subject to
the provisions of the statute
(c) In rare and peculiar cases of compe-
tition between railroads which are subject
To the statute, when a strict application of
the general rule of the statute would be
destructive of legitimate competition.
The first two of these conditions do not
apply in the case of the Central Vermont,
and the third can hardly be held to be of
controlling force in view of Gov Smith :
frank, though unguarded and unintention-
al admission, that the through freight bust
ness Of his road and its connections is so
profitable that the Central Vermont could
live without any local business.
In short the fact established at the hear
ing, and not denied by the respondents, APP
pears to be that they have been and are
charging from 10 to 20 per cent more for
carrying freight to points in Vermont, II
distance of say $50 to $50 miles, than for
carrying it through to Detroit, a distance
Of 1914 miles-and no defensible reason for
this discrimination was presented. That
Gov. Smith and his counsel clearly saw the
weakness and hopelessness of their case as
the hearing progressed is shown by the fact
that on Friday night at the end of the sec
ond day of the hearing, they approached
the counsellor the compliments with prop
osition to reduce their local tariff TO the
same figures as charged to Western points
il the complainants would agree that the
hearing should be suspended To this the
latter cheerfully agreed, and the consum-
nation of the arrangement was only pre-
vented by the fact that the general traffic
agent Of the Boston q Lowell company was
not then ON the ground to agree with Gov.
Smith that his road should share with the
Central Vermont in the proposed reduc-
ton.
We use the name of the Central Vermont
company as standing for the defence as a
whole because the evidence presented
showed it to be the leading and responsible
one of the defendant companies Superin-
tendent Mellen, of the Boston 4 Lowell
road, testified, for instance, that the roads
forming the National Despatch line made
their settlements with the Central Vermont
company, (which controls the line and
when complaints were made they were
made 10 the Central Vermont company.